June 7, 2011

WaPo reports Romney ahead 49% to 46%, among registered voters. (Among all Americans, the 2 men are tied at 47%.) Obama is ahead of the other 5 Republicans, and "[a]lmost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president."

The Post-ABC poll asked Republicans and GOP-leaning independents whom they would vote for if a primary or caucus were held now in their state. Romney topped the list, with 21 percent, followed by Palin at 17 percent. No one else reached double digits, although former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has suddenly shown interest in becoming a candidate, is close, at 8 percent. Without Palin in the race, Romney scores 25 percent, with all others in the single digits.

Surely, a lot of that is name recognition. It's not really fair to Pawlenty. But let's see if the Republicans have the cohesiveness to resist tearing down Romney. Meanwhile, Democrats ought to make Palin their new McCain. Give her a free ride, until she's clinched the nomination... and then destroy her.

It could be Mitt. It could be Pawlenty. It could be a real conservative and my pick, Herman Cain. Heck, Fred could get off the porch and it could be him (why didn't you fight for it Fred when you had the chance). I just want to see Obama out. Enough damage has been done.

Romney ought to be awfully nice to Palin. If she doesn't run, he would benefit from her endorsement; if she runs, the best way for him to beat here is to be nice to her--and then an endorsement from her would be more meaningful.

"Meanwhile, Democrats ought to make Palin their new McCain. Give her a free ride, until she's clinched the nomination... and then destroy her."

Doubly impossible.

Their attacks are what give her strength -- without the unfair attacks, we'd be looking at her the same way we look at the other candidates rather than defending her from the ridiculous smears. Without that, she can't clinch the nomination with less than two years as governor.

And, there's no way the media beast has the collective self-control to avoid attacking her.

I'd been assuming the media "planned" to make the new McCain out of Pawlenty. But it looks like the folks at Newsweek couldn't wait to bring out their "Hey, did you guys know he's a Mormon? Aren't they wacky!" Sadly, I think that's likely to have an effect -- and I really thought they'd be sitting on this until he was closer to the nomination.

Opinion polls are bunk. Public opinion changes with the wind and changes every day."

Opinion polls are bunk this far out. They're fairly accurate close to voting time. If Romney is seen as the only Rep with a chance to beat Obama it will be worth double digit percentage points in the primary. Kerry won the Democratic primary on this issue alone.

Since this story is the current headline on Drudge, maybe it's not too OT to point out that the layout there right now is a classic example of Drudgetaposition: Hillary to Huma to Weiner to a bare-chested guru.

It could be Mitt. It could be Pawlenty. It could be a real conservative and my pick, Herman Cain.

Can you guys explain, respectively, why you view Pawlenty is a ‘douche’ and not a ‘real conservative’? (this is a real question, I'm still in the 'making up my mind' stage on t-paw and haven't fully researched him yet. Which is another reason why this poll is useless)

Of course this would be unforgivable if done on a racist basis. The mainstream media tollerates good old fashioned Mormon bashing. I am definitely not into that.

But it is a good parody because it is sort of funny and so over the top it is clearly a parody. It would be perfectly okay if Newsweek was Spy or National Lampoon (both of which are sadly no more). But in this case the joke is on Newsweek. It is just a partisan rag.

Romney was on CNN (Morgan) yesterday. He seems like a nice guy. And, it does seem that, considering W, cons (and the American people) like picking presidents who are legacy candidates, trying to follow pops.

I believe that he's willing to say and do whatever it takes to win, even more blatantly than an average pol. The "win" may be more important than particular issues, hence his flexibility re issues. After a "win" I can't say what he'd do, since the "win" itself seems to be the only unwavering motivation.

"But let's see if the Republicans have the cohesiveness to resist tearing down Romney."

Haha

Let' wrap up this nominating thing today.

Althouse likes to streamline elections. First, the do-overs in WI were too much bother. Now, the Rs should simply anoint Romney, or at least make sure the show-primary doesn't seriously challenge him.

Polls this far out are mostly bunk and of marginal utility at best. I give that poll no credit. The country is about as polarized as it was in 2008. Obama has lost support of indies because of the economy. He is definitely vulerable. But he will win if the GOP does not find an articate candidate who can give a clear choice.

I am not much of a Romney fan. I think he is a competent guy and would be much better than Obama, but is a panderer and we do not need more panderers. Romney seems to have a hard time closing the deal with voters. Very few are enthusiastic about him. We need a leader. I sort of like Pawlenty, even if he has some of Mitt's pragmatic tendendies. He has gotten a little more conservative, which I like. I am not a so-con (it is not my primary motivator), I am a fiscal con. I want a president who can explain what a dire situation we are in and help fix it. That is what we need.

I like Herman Cain, even if he is a long shot, because he speaks plainly and well, does not have a fear of saying the wrong thing, and has good instincts. I know he may not win. But his involvement in the primaries is a positive thing. And I believe he could win. So I support him.

If only 25% of the sample identified as R, the obvious purpose of the poll is to throw cold water on Palin. The timing is the tell, right when Palin is surging. So dishonest as to be corrupt, from the supposed 4th Estate.

Is there something about Huntsman's record you don't like. His cap-and-trade fixation was silly. He'll have to renounce that as useless. But he did a good job as Utah governor in attracting business and investment, and he can tell the Chinese to go fuck themselves in Mandarin. He says we should drop the corporate tax rate to 25%.

Whether the Dems like him or not, or whether or not he's a flamethrower, who gives a shit. Why don't you think he'd do a good job on controlling/cutting spending and instituting pro-growth policies?

let's see if the Republicans have the cohesiveness to resist tearing down Romney

Why shouldn't they tear down the Weasel? After all, aren't Republicans entitled to have a Republican as their nominee? Must they always have some squish, must they always first seek the approval of the MSM in picking their nominee?

Romney is not part of the solution, he is part of the problem. What would be gained by his nomination or election? Only more of the same.

I think Ras had Barry only 1 better than Generic Republican. And that was some time ago, the economy is only now starting to list heavily to port.

Also, the media will never be able to "give her a free ride". The old gag about the frog and the scorpion. But she will still make them look like the idiots they are.

Jeremy said...

As for politics, beliefs, proposals, and actual decisions, Romney is as close to President Obama as a Republican can get.

Thank you, dear, for confirming who really wants to see Milton nominated. Most of us here have known that for at least 4 years.

The fact that so many of the teabaggers here are suddenly falling all over themselves in support of Romney tells you how uninformed and uneducated most of the The Queen's regulars really are.

No, the leader of one Tea Party group was asked if she'd support Romney if he were the nominee. The thinking behind her answer was, "Better him than Zero". The Lefties would love that to mean she spoke for everyone in her group and all the other Tea Partiers, but that is nonsense.

Most people don't want Milton for the reasons Jeremy mentions. He would be too easy for Little Zero to beat. And I wouldn't trust any of the network polls, including Fox.

Romney ought to be awfully nice to Palin. . . . I could see myself voting for Romney. Don't want to, but I can see it.

People in the Romney camp have already trashed her. A lot of the snooty, nose-in-the-air, elitist, anti-Palin crap comes from his organization. Meanwhile, the supporters of others, such as Truce Daniels, have spent as much time tearing down Palin rather than promote their own candidates.

And after trashing Sarah Palin, they are going to have the gall to ask Palin supporters to vote for their guy if he gets the nomination??

I haven't had a strong opinion about Pawlenty, so I can't speak for those who do. But I read the advance text of the speech he's going to give today and I was left cold.

It looks like he's planning to run as a conservative policy wonk. He's going to make government run efficiently, reduce spending by 1% a year or something like that, and drastically reduce income taxes on capital. This will allow Obama to run as a liberal policy wonk, which is the most advantageous stance for him. My hunch is that if Obama gets to run against "massive tax cuts for the rich," he'll win.

Anyway, that's my initial take from one speech. Not exactly set in stone.

I think there's much more of a chance of that than people currently credit.

Unless either the economy turns around substantially, or Obama manages to credibly claim victory in at least one war front and bring the troops home, I do think we'll get a bait-and-switch.

Once we've picked the perfect dream team to run against President Obama and his policies, we'll suddenly find ourselves facing a first-term Democratic governor like Bev Perdue with practically no record to run against.

Or the Clintons will make their move. Lots of dems and independents will probably be wishing Hillary had been the Democratic nominee in '08.

I voted for him in the primary here in FL in 2008, but he lost steam just at that point. I would vote for him again, and I would relish the thought of the contrast that would be presented in face to face debates.

But his policies have put the economy in the shitter. That's where he's most vulnerable, IMO.

I can't disagree with that, but I think a key reason his policies have failed so completely is the widespread uncertainty about exactly what else he has in store for us down the road. If that uncertainty can be turned against him, then he can be beaten.

"If he's beating Obama in polls, Obama is a lot more f---ed than I thought..."

I think this conclusion premature. Democratic sycophants like WAPO are making an enormous effort bolstering Romney to defend Obamacare. Because of this he's the non-threatening alternative to Obama. This won't translate to any other candidate, nor will this persist until the general election. If Romney ends up with the nomination he instantly reverts to scary religious nut status.

A big part of Texas' problem, along with California, is illegal immigrants.

You should compare Texas to California in your metrics, since they are both large population states with a high percentage of illegal immigrants.

As for Massachusetts, I think the complaint is that to move a state that had a percentage of insured already (90%) to 95% insured cost a lot of money. Also, quality of care hasn't improved, waiting times up, and people still use the ER for primary care. A family of four health insurance policy is the highest cost in the nation. Romney and the technocrats predicted the opposite of this. That's a big competency problem.

Obama and his technocrats have also been way off on their predictiions of Obamacare (the percentage of people who have signed up for the high-risk pools is 10% of what they predicted. That is abysmal).

At a certain point you can have low growth, high unemployment and a welfare state that will last maybe another 25 years. Or you can try something else. The Massachusetts option and the Texas option aren't the only two choices.

If it's fine for Texas and Perry to choose this stuff, why can't Romney give Massachusetts what it wants?

Excellent question; I share your enthusiasm for federalism. Now let's revise the question suitably so that it can be posed to those who think that a national health-care policy ought to override individual states' decisions.

Huntsman is the worse sort of pramatist. That is fine in the Senate when you are trying to craft legislation. It is a terrible tendency with an executive. You want a leader with a clear vision of where we need to go and who articulates it. I do not trust Huntsman with Supreme Court picks or anything else. I have my doubts about many of the other candidates too, but I really am not into more of the same-o-same-o with GOP candidates.

Maybe I am missing something with Huntsman, but I have not seen anything even remotely resembling a true conservative backbone in him (yes he is a "Democrat fi-con" or a "Republican lite" candidate. I get that and reject that. If you have examples of him doing that, please share them.

The media loves covering a spectacle, and there's no spectacle on the horizon like a campaign between Palin and Obama.

Demonstrably not true, and over time as well. The media has never at any stage of the electoral process ever in any manner loved the conservative candidate. They demonize them. Goldwater, Reagan, or Palin, take your choice.

Althouse - "Meanwhile, Democrats ought to make Palin their new McCain. Give her a free ride, until she's clinched the nomination... and then destroy her."

Indeed. Palin's negatives are up at Jesse Jackson levels. She has a band of conservative men that see her as Goddess, some "victimhood-focused" women that would vote for any "bashed woman" running - Palin, Hillary, perky Christine O'Donnell - it doesn't matter who. But Palin has no more a coterie of ferverent supporters than Jesse Jackson did. And the same number - 2/3rds of voters that said absolutely no way would they ever vote for Jesse.

I would be surprised if Palin runs the media does not want her in to wreck the Republicans as much as possible, as was done with the dimbulb, backstabber McCain. Except the progressive Jews behind much of the media could stomach Jesse, could stomach McCain, but absolutely hate Palin.

Romney could be smart like FDR was in disposing of Joe Kennedy. Announce he would be making Palin the next Ambassador to the Court of St James. That would give all her yahoos and fundies and victimhood women backer what they really want. The Goddess would be out telling those intellectual, effete Elitists of Europe a goshdarn thing or two. About Jesus, hockey Mom wisdom, loving Israel as a path to salvation, loving the military and Reagan! Palin would be 24/7 in the Brit tabloids and getting every second of media attention craved. Then with new books, rural and chtlin circuit speaking tours, and reality TV shows for the Fundies made possible and tens of millions looming - she gets tired of being Brit Ambassador and quits.

Shouting Dolt - "Palin's current tour has been a middle finger salute to the media. I don't think this woman is going to give up. She's pissed at the campaign of slander that the media has aimed at her, and she intends to win in the long run."

Well she better get out her bells and muskets...you know...to make sure the British know she's coming.

But, that only further proves that different things work for different states.

If the Massachusetts folks wanted Romneycare, why can they have it? States rights and all. And, according to Romney the health care system is very popular, so your complaints don't seem to be much of a bother for the folks up there.

State's rights shouldn't only allow for turning a state into Texas. States should also be able to tax and spend on education, health care, and limiting pollution, if that's what they want to do.

Ed,

Why do you call him Milton? That seems like it could be a compliment in R circles, if it makes folks think about Friedman.

I don't get caught up in the details, especially at this point in the game. The most important news is that BHO's OBL bounce is over and his numbers are heading lower. Even the KOS kids are sounding pretty dejected today.

1. The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.

2. Claims that the law is "bankrupting" the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

3. Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.

4. Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.(FactCheck.org)

I disagree. Romneycare, AFAIK, only mandates means-tested insurance coverage. It doesn't involve the state government in the micromanagement of health-care administration and delivery. Another difference between Romneycare and Obamacare? A state-level mandate is constitutional.

So, I can see how it'd be a political problem to have Romney say (as he did yesterday) that it's popular and effective."

It's not effective. It's already missing its own targets.

Policies are often popular during the first act when all people know is what the liberals who support it tell them. When it runs out of money people will realize what they have to give up for it, and then its popularity will fall off a cliff. Liberals intend to nationalize it before that realization hits, thus the rush to Obamacare. To them bankrupting all the states is preferable to learning the inconvenient truths.

Romneycare in Mass is fine with me. One bankrupt state is a lesson to the rest.

An AGW acknowledging, health care mavericky Mormon who previously supported abortion rights, gun control and gay marriage. Yeah, the T-party will come out in droves for this one. He'll never make it past mid-primaries.

"Romney says there is global warming, caused by *gasp* humans. And he took a swipe at Palin, which Palin Cultists will never forget. He's cooked...."

What Romney did was say something intelligent about CO2 and global warming.

And with Palin well known for her beloved "rogue ways, her 'fearlessness' at taking swipes at most rivals" - it becomes a matter of if she dishes out on rivals and tries stealing media attention away - if she can take being swiped at in return (or counts on her Cult members to moan about "woman-bashing").

Outside a small pack of conservatives that have a near-religious or in some cases an actual religious belief that Jesus will never allow man to run out of resources, damage the Earth, or make any animal extinct that Jesus personally cares about - most people are concerned about human activities impact on the environment. They want neither the Green Nazis nor the arch-conservative rejectionists dictating to them - they want good science and leaders that balance things slight warming vs. economic destruction to end "excess carbon use".

Romney appeals to the middle. He needs to reach out to the Fundies and rejectionists on the Right and convince them that with the US economy and financial system in grave peril - he will not add to the damage by implimenting any Green Nazi policy.

Ann, surely you jest? If the media "could" destroy Sarah Palin, that would have been done over the past 2+ years...they took their best shot, and she's not only still standing but stronger than ever. Not a good strategy, and precisely why the same media are so busy trying to select and promote the PC Repub candidate for us. As Andrew Breitbart stated, "The press can't stand Palin because she has refused to participate with them in her own demise."

From the POV of the 2012 election, the key data from this poll are Obama's reelect numbers. In a poll that is already grossly slanted toward Obama (Dem +6 weighting), 45% of registered voters say they will definitely vote against the President, while only 24% will definitely vote to reelect.

"The thing about Mitt Romney is, he's a Mormon. His prophet, Joseph Smith, was raised outside of Rochester NY circa 1825 when the Erie Canal opened. The Canal was host to so many charlatan preachers and magicians and flim flam men that it was known as the "Burned Over" country, a reference to al the fire and brimstone preachers.

Unlike Jesus or Mohammed or the Buddha, we know a great deal about the life of Joe Smith. We know he was a con man. Smith approached poor farmers with a pitch. He offtered to find ancient gold buried on the farmers land by ancient indians. He would put his magic stone into his hat, then put his face into the hat and see where the gold was buried. Thus, the term "Se'er". Smith would lead the farmer to certain buried riches - all for a modest fee. He'd collect the fee and off to the next farm and more buried gold. He was convicted to swindling people and run out of NY. He landed in Ohio. Oh, and he wrote his own bible.

Mitt Romney and all Mormons profess their faith in this con man. There is reason to distrust Mr.Romney just as there was reason to distrust Mr. Smith.

And having an honest debate about the danger - without conservative fools saying Rush or Jesus rejects any problem..or acting as rash and as draconian as the Greens demand we act, the hell with other consequences to humanity.

Even without Man, the Earth's climate is hardly static, and Greens seeking the worst restrictions on modern economies to achieve a stasis that never existed in the 1st place - are on a fool's errand.

Uh oh, time for some feeble ad hominem and juvenile insults, eh Scott tard. I think you're the one who likes Weiner, like many centrist conservatives. Pro business, pro-war, AIPAC fan, neo con--he was only a democrat after he married Hillary's aide, though his recent votes have been acceptable.

Now, Mitt for AGW--that sort of f**ks the TP/GOP/A-tard agenda eh. Going to have to run Sarah Dyslexic now--and buena suerte with that

Hysterical, coming from the resident king of feeble ad hominem and juvenile insults. One only has to add anti-Semitic and you come up with a perfect description of an overwhelming majority of your thoughts hereabouts. Oh, sorry. Forgot to add just a dash of mentions about how much you can bench. If you don't at that, you don't get the complete stack of vitriol that is J.

Why would you want to ruin your record with coherent thoughts? I know you're capable. You just choose not to prove it more often than not.

Romney is already out of the running. I am sure the establishment wants him but I don't see him making it out of the primaries with the twin vultures of Romneycare and AGW picking at his bones. It is only a matter of whom the support coalesces around but if Romney is the best the Pubbies can do it would be better to leave Obama in so he and his party can go down with the ship.

We don't have to settle for the candidate the media picks for us this time around. If it keeps going this way they will have to sample only democrats to keep Obama competitive by election time.

Convince Republicans that they must nominate a moderate, sensible candidate, lest they face a disastrous defeat. Didn't Republicans already follow that advice in 2008?

Er... no? McCain was more conservative than the second and third-place Republican candidates (Huckabee and Romney).

If Republicans had wanted to "follow that advice" in 2008 they would have nominated Romney... who would still have lost, because the 2008 elections were all about how much the Bush administration stunk.

I noticed you forgot to add "baseless accusations", as you've mentioned before, to your 1306 rant, but I see you made up for about 30 minutes later with some of your own, if nonsensical. Well played. How much is your bench max up to now? Have you plateaued at 400 or are you still improving? Are people still scared of you because of that?

SunnyJ - "Ann, surely you jest? If the media "could" destroy Sarah Palin, that would have been done over the past 2+ years...they took their best shot, and she's not only still standing but stronger than ever."

The Princess is "stronger than ever?"

With which block of actual voters?

Her disapproval ratings are sky high and 2/3's of Americans say they wouldn't vote for her...that's what you call "stronger than ever?"

Since the negatives were never based on reality but were manufactured, they can be reversed pretty fast. See, e.g., Reagan circa 1979.

Yes, the American people liked Reagan once they got to know him. And so some Republicans insist "it'll be the same for Sarah. Once the people get to know her they'll like her".

The problem is that the Republicans in question apparently fell and hit their heads on something hard in mid-2008 -- because they seem to think "the American people getting to know Sarah Palin" is an event that still lies in the future, rather than something which already happened.

SunnyJ - "Ann, surely you jest? If the media "could" destroy Sarah Palin, that would have been done over the past 2+ years...they took their best shot, and she's not only still standing but stronger than ever."

The Princess is "stronger than ever?"

With which block of actual voters?

Her disapproval ratings are sky high and 2/3's of Americans say they wouldn't vote for her...that's what you call "stronger than ever?"

I like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. But Palin's never going to be President. The people who like her intensely like her and the people who don't like her intensely don't like her. But in the end, the intensitiy doesn't matter. It's the quantity of support a candidate has, not the intensity. Palin is not an unknown quantity, anymore than Hillary was. Hillary is never going to be President either.

The differance between Sarah Palin and Pawlenty and Romney and the rest of the herd of Rhinos that they are trying to stampede into the convention is that Palin is not afraid to fight. Fight the media. Fight the mainstream press. Fight the entertainment industry that will strive to destroy the Republican nominee 24/7. Fight the Jounalist cabal that will try to manage the news. And most of all fight the Jug Eared Jesus who these other mashmellow will never lay a glove on. It's that simple.

Give me someone who will fight like Palin and I will listen. All of you nay-sayers haven't come close.

You guys want to surrender without a fight. To play on their terms. To swallow the same shit we have been swallowing all these years.

Palin or good or ill will not do that. She is doing something different. She might not run. I don't know. But I know she won't run scared like Mitt or little Timmy or the other lackluster douchenozzles who are throwing their scented hankercheifs into the ring.

Reagan did serve as he was in the reserves but was kept from going overseas because of his nearsightedness and spent the war making movies.

John Wayne did not serve. Facts are facts. He spent the war making propaganda.

The Duke was 35 years old in '42 and had no prior military experience (USAR, NG)and was told that, if he decided to enlist, he'd spend the Duration as a buck private at Fort Ord (or somewhere else) (this was when the possibility of a 200 division Army was very real). He was also told he could do more for the war effort making movies.

Reagan, OTOH, almost lost his commission. Frank McCarthy (who later produced the movie bios of Patton and MacArthur) was an old friend and was serving on George Marshall's personal staff and saw Reagan's name on the promotion list and sent him a congratulatory telegram.

When Marshall heard about the wire, he was furious because he didn't want anyone thinking Hollywood stars got preferential treatment and almost cancelled Reagan's commission.

For the local teabagging crowd who worships the ground Princess Sarah hovers above...here's a snippet of the New York Post's (a Murdoch publication no less) review of her upcoming documentary:

"Its tone is an excruciating combination of bombast and whining, it's so outlandishly partisan that it makes Richard Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln and its febrile rush of images – not excluding earthquakes, car wrecks, volcanic eruption and attacking Rottweilers – reminded me of the brainwash movie Alex is forced to sit through in "A Clockwork Orange." Except no one came along to refresh my pupils with eye drops."

If this is accurate how could one even describe Jeremy? Ass moles are smarter than Jeremy. Anyone who believes the best use of their time is simply to disrupt others discussions is right. The biggest contribution this waste of life will ever make is feeding worms.

The differance between Sarah Palin and Pawlenty and Romney and the rest of the herd of Rhinos that they are trying to stampede into the convention is that Palin is not afraid to fight.

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that Palin is "not afraid to fight" and the rest of the candidates are. Fine.

So what?

Mccullough and I are arguing that she can't win the election because voters hate her. You're arguing that if she somehow DID win she would make a good President. You may be right... but so what? Sure, she'd be a better President than Mitt Romney, but so would half the people in this thread. We'll never be President either.

I've asked you several times to explain how, exactly, she's going to win when most voters hate her. You haven't been able to. All you've got is ad hominems and fanboying. Grow up.

mccullough - Were you bitching and whining while G.W. pissed away trillions on two wars? How about that 700 billion dollar bank bailout he signed on the way out the door? And, as for unemployment, it was at 8.2% three weeks after he left.

What will the Dems do in 2-3 months when a Generic Republican is beating Prez Obama by a wide margin?

Interesting question. Care to qualify wide margin? 10 points? Regardless, as far as the Democrats in general are concerned, I'm far more interested in why they haven't passed a budget since 2009.

Were you bitching and whining while G.W. pissed away trillions on two wars? How about that 700 billion dollar bank bailout he signed on the way out the door?

We've been down this road many times with you, Jeremy. You're so married to your view that we're all monolithic in our viewpoints that you won't listen to people even if they answer both questions with "yes, I was bitching about it". You don't really care about the answer.

Of course he doesn't. Jeremy is a poo flinger. He hates Bush for spending trillions and getting us in two wars but dutifully slips on his kneepads for Obama who is spending trillions more and got us in a third war.

But he's like most liberals who will never admit they elected a guy who never held a real job, has no clue what he is doing but will cheerfully vote for the guy who is taking the country over the cliff.

His usual refrain "but what about Buuuuuuuuush!" is all he and others have to somehow absolve them from being idiots for electing someone worse.

If I wanted to fight for the person who would make the best President, without worrying about whether they could actually win, Palin would definitely in the top five from among the current crop of candidates. I'm undecided if it would be Johnson, Paul, Cain, Pawlenty, Palin or Johnson, Paul, Cain, Palin, Pawlenty. Pawlenty and Palin were both big-government conservatives while in office, but that's still preferable to Obama.

Marshal - I guarantee you I'm one hell of a lot smarter, more educated and more informed than Princess Sarah.

And it didn't take me five or six colleges to get that way either.

And if I'm such a fool...and such a waste of your valuable time...what does that make YOU...for taking the time to whine and bitch about me?

A d-u-n-c-e?

If Jeremy is so much smarter and more informed than Miss Sarah, why is he carrying water for Kos?

And he gets rebutted because people know how Uncle Saul taught his little nephews and nieces to throw out as many lies as possible in the hope some would stick in people's memories.

mccullough - Were you bitching and whining while G.W. pissed away trillions on two wars? How about that 700 billion dollar bank bailout he signed on the way out the door? And, as for unemployment, it was at 8.2% three weeks after he left.

Try reading more and posting teabagger drivel less.

That war (singular) was occasioned by this country being attacked unprovoked and going after the people who did it. (love to hear him run that one past FDR in '43)

And TARP (ill-advised as it was) would have expired about the time Little Zero was inaugurated if said Zero hadn't extended it.

And unemployment's about 19.1 today. 22, if you count those who have exhausted their unemployment or retired before they were ready.

Tea Partiers are the ones who are doing the reading, it's the Kossacks that drivel - all over the floor.

I've seen multiple Palin supporters on here claim that her willingness to "fight" the media is what makes her the only real winning candidate.

The problem there is that her "fight" has gotten so ridiculous and overblown that the 66% don't take it seriously. When she starts claiming that "What have you seen so far today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" is a "gotcha question." The fact that "lamestream media" sounds like an insult a 12 year old made up.

It's gotten to the point that everything is a "gotcha question" to Palin. Every mention of her is an attack. Any time someone corrects her, it's the elitist media trying to keep down the "real" truth. And to the majority of us, it has become a complete joke.

Pawlenty and Palin were both big-government conservatives while in office, but that's still preferable to Obama.

I agree. Then most are, at least in the sense of what they plan on spending money on. I'd be less irate over government spending if it was, you know, actually doing something..oh I don't know, constructive?

Federal spending will only come under real restraint when we hit the Greece mark. That's when no one will consider buying Treasuries because we will, like Greece, hit the point where we simply can't pay back what was borrowed. Hell we're there already once you factor in Social Security and Medicare.

No candidate is going to do anything about it until there is no alternative.

Corn Cob - Who I support as President has little bearing on my statement that I'm smarter than the Princess.

Sure it does. You blindly support a man who has demonstrated that he isn't even as smart as a 5th grader and you still continue to do so despite his spending trillions more than Bush and getting us in another wasteful war, like Bush.

"I've asked you several times to explain how, exactly, she's going to win when most voters hate her. You haven't been able to. All you've got is ad hominems and fanboying. Grow up."

1. Elections are about the sitting president and the state of the country in November. 9%+ unemployment, $4 gas, rising food prices, possible (likely?) double dip recession put any sitting prseident at risk.

2. We don't have one election. We have 50 little ones. Huge margins in California and New York won't help Obama win Indiana again.

3. Other than maybe Arizona, because of Giffords, what state that McCain won is going to vote for Obama this time?

3. Any GOPer will take back Indiana and North Carolina. That leaves Virginia and Florida and Ohio to determine the winner. None of those states are Blue, they are Purple states that lean Red.

4. We have seen Obama get testy at small events and press conference where only political junkies are paying attention. That mean streak comes out in the debate with Palin, with everybody watching, some votes may change. It only takes a few hundred of thousand of votes spread over the key states to make a difference.

5. S**t happens. In June 1979, we had a fully intact embassy in Iran. In November, the hostages were seized and Carter was finished. You don't know waht is going to happen in 17 months, 3 months ago, Bin Laden was dyeing his hair and watching videos.

What is it about that that you can't get through that concrete block you call a head?

Well its because you blindly support President Corpseman who has clearly demonstrated his lack of intelligence on numerous ocassions. He wasn't even smart enough to stop talking during the British National Anthem. I mean how dim can you be to talk through God Save the Queen?

So I can only conclude that you dislike Palin solely because she's a woman, a strong, independent at that. I mean I understand, there are a lot of men who hate strong independent women who tend to highlight their shortcomings.

No one here cares that Obama is black. They care that he is an incompetent, arrogant fool. He's instituting policies that have proven to fail over and over again. That means he's incompetent. He thinks they will work now because he is President. That means he's arrogant.

How is jumping into Libya with no strategy a slip of the tongue? It's something an intelligent person wouldn't do. Also, an intelligent person wouldn't sign a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill when that shit didn't work in the U.S. in the 1930s or Japan in the 1990s. And who passes another entitlement program when unemployment is at 10 percent?

I support President Obama because I think he's done a good job, especially based on what he inherited from your little buddy.

So he's outspent Bush and got us in another war (I thought he was supposed to end the first two...)and you think that's a good job. Got it.

As for his intelligence, I have absolutely no doubt he's considerably smarter than anybody posting here,

How do you know? Seen his grades? Sounds like blind faith to me.

Using slips of the tongue as a measuring stick for intelligence tells you how desperate the teabagger crowd really is.

Why not? That is the measuring gauge of intelligence you gave Bush and Palin. Biden though FDR was on TV. Obama slipped up and said 'corpseman' twice. That's not a slip up, he doesn't know how its pronounced. Austrian isn't a language. Those aren't gaffes, its a sign of his lack of intelligence.

I didn't like W. He signed TARP, which both McCain and Obama voted for (and which we've at least gotten a fair amount of money back on). What about Obam Obama also voted for W.'s fiscal year 2009 budget.

I didn't like McCain's propensity for war. But I did admire that he actually put his ass on the line. And his sons signed up for the military too. Call me when Barack, Sasha and Malia do the same. It's called sacrifice.

Do you think Libya is a costless war? Are we going to intervene in Syria, now? If not, why not? Why not Iran.

And what happened to the "days, not weeks" timetable. Another slip of the tongue?

The trillion dollar stimulus didn't work. It sucked. Obama admitted there weren't really any "shovel-ready projects." He didn't know that at the time, because he didn't even know what the fuck Keynesian deficit-spending was supposed to do. He just said what they told him to say. Doesn't that worry you?

Have you read the recent jobs report?

And why is unemployment so much lower in Germany, even though their stimulus was way less?

And why are there only 20,000 people signed up for the high-risk insurance pools when Obama said there would be 200,000 by now? Why are there thousands of waivers for Obamacare already?

I think Obama is intelligent enough to be Prez - but I have a hard time swallowing assertions of his "genius" without evidence. No SATs or GPAs posted, no academic writing after graduating Harvard Law...his claim to fame is his pals and profs liked him enough to give him a Law Review honorific title of "President" (not Editor).

I also have some doubts about the genius mind of Goddess Palin. Yah betcha I do. 7 years for a degree in sports broadcast journalism?

Not that brains are everything (see Newt, Nixon, Bubba Clinton), but I'm a little leery of people with no evidence of any smarts whose supporters claim they are the smartest people on the planet.

According to the academic work of the Roemers tax cuts create are a more effective stimulus because they get money in the hands of people. So the first thing you'd do is cut the corporate income tax rate to about 10%. Corporations don't pay taxes, their employees and shareholders do in the form of lower wages and earnings. This would help stanch layoffs and also increase business investment.

You would also eliminate the payroll taxes. Finally, if there were some worthwhile infrastructure projects (not dog parks and paving a few streets), you would undertake those.

But if you're a Keynesian, the velocity of money is important. So you'd suspend any state and federal environmental regulations, federal and state bidding requirements, and Davis-Bacon and its state equivalents to get those infrastructure projects up and running as fast as possible.

Your guy did none of this. He waited two years before cutting a portion of the payroll taxes. Too late.

If you were an incompetent ideologue, you'd do what Obama and the Dem Congress did.

If you were an uninformed citizen, you would still think it was a good idea.